Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has there been life for 1/4 of the age of the Universe?
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 106 of 114 (371247)
12-20-2006 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ringo
12-20-2006 4:33 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
Ringo, re:
Huh? Genes are "stored" on DNA molecules, are they not? Arrangements of atoms in DNA molecules, are they not? How do they not "have" thermodynamic principles?
I'm good with what you say here, but only up to a point. If you will forgive my woo-woo-ness, I am troubled over how a language arises on thermodynamic principles. I know you will object to that, and that's OK. If genes communicated their information on a purely stereochemical basis I'd be tight with your POV. The fact is they don't. This is a strange trick of nature, when you think about how such a language came out of a soup that had only heat and chemicals in it.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ringo, posted 12-20-2006 4:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ringo, posted 12-20-2006 7:36 PM Fosdick has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 107 of 114 (371256)
12-20-2006 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Fosdick
12-20-2006 7:06 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
Hoot Mon writes:
I am troubled over how a language arises on thermodynamic principles.
Yeah, yeah, we've been over it and over it and over it. You have yet to show that there is a language that is necessary to prescribe the process. Several times now, you have failed to respond to that issue, only to bring it up again a few posts later.
If genes communicated their information on a purely stereochemical basis I'd be tight with your POV. The fact is they don't.
If that is a "fact", you should be able to demonstrate it, explain it, provide references for it... something more than just repeatedly asserting it.
Until you can establish that "fact" as a fact, I'm not inclined to waste any more effort.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Fosdick, posted 12-20-2006 7:06 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2006 12:51 PM ringo has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 108 of 114 (371405)
12-21-2006 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ringo
12-20-2006 7:36 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
Ringo says:
If that is a "fact", you should be able to demonstrate it, explain it, provide references for it... something more than just repeatedly asserting it. Until you can establish that "fact" as a fact, I'm not inclined to waste any more effort.
OK, whatever.
I think stereochemistry is a FACT, don't you? I agree with you that life IS in the molecules. I also agree that molecular dynamics is a steroechemical affair”Tinker Toys and all”and that chemists know a great deal about the mechanical aspects of stereochemical bonding. But wait...one thing that is clear to all molecular biologists is that the Central Dogma (Crick's) prohibits proteins from communicating back to the genes precisely because there are no stereochemical pathways for that information to travel. J. D. Watson's Molecular Biology of the Gene, for straters, is loaded with the FACTS you choose to ignor. Or maybe you think Watson and Crick were just dabbling in the woo-woos.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ringo, posted 12-20-2006 7:36 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by AZPaul3, posted 12-21-2006 3:32 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 12-21-2006 4:09 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 109 of 114 (371424)
12-21-2006 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Fosdick
12-21-2006 12:51 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
But wait...one thing that is clear to all molecular biologists is that the Central Dogma (Crick's) prohibits proteins from communicating back to the genes precisely because there are no stereochemical pathways for that information to travel.
I wanna push on this just a bit, if I may. There is no direct feedback from protein function or anywhere else into the genome on a cellular or individual basis. But, taking a rather Dawkinesque view of “population” there is one really, really big feedback mechanism indirectly into the genome. Natural Selection.
This doesn’t help in explaining how the first rudimentary processes of “code/language” in those first pre-proto RNA thingies got started, but it does propose a mechanism for the further development of that language once the process started.
Or maybe you think Watson and Crick were just dabbling in the woo-woos.
If that's the case then you're in some good company there, Hoot. As long as they weren't among my fellow Repulicans then I quess it's alright.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2006 12:51 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2006 3:53 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 110 of 114 (371426)
12-21-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by AZPaul3
12-21-2006 3:32 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
AZPaul3, you wrote:
There is no direct feedback from protein function or anywhere else into the genome on a cellular or individual basis. But, taking a rather Dawkinesque view of “population” there is one really, really big feedback mechanism indirectly into the genome. Natural Selection.
I do agree. NS, combned with genetic drift, gene flow, and preferential mating would seem to be enough to establish feedback into a genome. The point I would emphasize is that this kind of feedback doesn't travel deterministically through stereochemical pathways, but instead stochastically through homological pathways in a population.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by AZPaul3, posted 12-21-2006 3:32 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 111 of 114 (371430)
12-21-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Fosdick
12-21-2006 12:51 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
Hoot Mon writes:
J. D. Watson's Molecular Biology of the Gene, for straters, is loaded with the FACTS you choose to ignor.
I don't "choose to ignore" any facts. You have not presented any facts for me to ignore. You keep asserting that there are facts, but when I ask you what they are, you go off on a tangent. Then, a few posts later, you're asserting again that there are facts.
It's time to put up or (**** **). Present your facts.
Edited by Ringo, : Shpelling.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2006 12:51 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 112 of 114 (371634)
12-22-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by AZPaul3
12-19-2006 6:42 PM


Re: Cyborgs-R-Us
AZPaul3, you wrote:
Speaking of the "Game of Life," have you tried using rule 245/24? Makes some purrty pictures. Start with a 5x5 block. The symmetry is amazing. Then do the same with some asymmetrical form. You still get a discernible “eye” in the center. Now try 2 symmetries on the same page and see what happens to the eyes as they merge. Then 2 asymmetries. Then the biggie: try one of each. Interesting stuff. Proof that simple deterministic rules can yield . what? Randomness? At least something very close.
I've been over to Conway's Game of Life site, trying out a few of your configurations. Very interesting! While playing around with a few minimal configurations I ran accross this one:
1. Clear field.
2. Set field to"medium" pixel display.
3. Make two neighboring 3x3 pixel Thingies, separated by one pixel column, and leave the center pixel of each Thingy empty (depicting minimal "cellular" structure).
4. Start 'er up.
5. When those little Thingies mate they evolve into numerous monster Thingies with relatively more complex structures before they finally go extinct on the 54th generation.
I wish I knew if this has any meaning at all where biological evolution is concerned. The most I can make of it is that Nature, even in her "virtual reality," allows self-organization and evolutuion to occur.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by AZPaul3, posted 12-19-2006 6:42 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AZPaul3, posted 12-22-2006 3:18 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 113 of 114 (371668)
12-22-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Fosdick
12-22-2006 12:21 PM


Re: Cyborgs-R-Us
I wish I knew if this has any meaning at all where biological evolution is concerned. The most I can make of it is that Nature, even in her "virtual reality," allows self-organization and evolutuion to occur.
All it shows, as if we didn't already know, is that simple rules can lead to complex form, even random looking form.
Forget the website. Get your own...free.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jbontes/
Happy Holidays.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Fosdick, posted 12-22-2006 12:21 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 114 of 114 (375022)
01-06-2007 9:18 PM


This is a nice summary of "jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks":
Robinson writes:
The standard model of the RNA world..."requires an environment that is impossibly improbable." The alternative is a much smaller set of molecules at much higher concentrations, bubbling up from below.
This conjures up Thomas Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere", which I happen to appreciate.
”Hoot Mon

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024